Former California McDonald’s Employee Files a Wage and Hour Class Action

A former McDonald’s employee, Elisa Alvarez, filed a California Class Action alleging wage and hour violations. 

The Case: Elisa Alvarez v. SLO Arches, Ivernia, and Golden Seneca (collectively “McDonald’s”)

The Court: San Luis Obispo County Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: 21CV-0533

The Plaintiff: Elisa Alvarez v. SLO Arches, Ivernia, and Golden Seneca (collectively “McDonald’s”)

The plaintiff, Elisa Alvarez is a former employee of the defendant. According to the lawsuit, Alvarez was employed as a non-exempt employee from March 2017 to March 2019 and received her last paycheck from the Defendant in March 2021. Alvarez was paid on an hourly basis, and was allegedly entitled to meal and rest periods, minimum wage, reporting time pay, and overtime wages as required by employment law. The plaintiff brings the Class Action on behalf of herself and on behalf of all individuals

who are or were previously employed by the Defendant as non-exempt employees during the time period beginning four years preceding the date of the filing of the Complaint and ending on the date determined by the court to define the Class Period. The aggregate claim of California class members is under $5 million. The plaintiff reserved the right to amend class definitions before the Court determines if class certification is appropriate. 

The Defendant: Elisa Alvarez v. SLO Arches, Ivernia, and Golden Seneca (collectively “McDonald’s”)

The defendant in the case, SLO Arches, Ivernia, and Golden Seneca

Details About the Case: Elisa Alvarez v. SLO Arches, Ivernia, and Golden Seneca (collectively “McDonald’s”)

The plaintiff filed a class action complaint against SLO Arches, Inc. ("SLO Arches"), Ivernia, Incorporated ("Ivernia"), and Golden Seneca, Inc. ("Golden Seneca") (collectively, "McDonald's"), McDonald's franchisees. According to the lawsuit, the Defendant failed to provide employees with legally compliant meal and rest periods, failed to pay overtime wages, failed to pay minimum wage, failed to provide required meal and rest periods, failed to reimburse for required business expenses, failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and failed to provide wages when due. According to California employment law, employers must pay employees no less than the applicable minimum wage for all hours worked in each payroll period. Hours worked is legally defined as “the time during which an employee is subject to the control of an employer and includes all the time the employee is suffered or permitted to work, whether or not required to do so.” Allegedly, McDonald's required employees to complete work before and after their scheduled shifts, and during the employees’ off-duty breaks. According to the lawsuit, McDonald's failed to compensate its employees for any of the time spent under the employer's control while working off-the-clock before and after their shifts as well as during breaks. Based on these allegations, McDonald’s failed to provide their employees with applicable minimum wage for the complete number of hours they worked.

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need to file a wage and hour lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Activision Fails to Convince California Court to Halt Discrimination & Harassment Case

Activision’s request to halt the sexual harassment and discrimination case to allow more time for investigation into the ethics allegations against the agency was denied.  

The Case: Dept. of Fair Employment and Housing v. Activision Blizzard 

The Court: California Superior Court

The Case No.: 21STCV26571

The Plaintiff: Dept. of Fair Employment and Housing v. Activision Blizzard

California’s civil rights agency sued Activision Blizzard in Los Angeles Superior Court in July 2021. The lawsuit alleged that the company fostered a“frat boy” culture that left their female employees subjected to frequent sexual harassment, unequal pay, and workplace retaliation. The agency claims they conducted a two-year investigation into the Activision company leadership prior to filing that showed consistent failures to take action preventing discrimination related to equal pay, promotion, termination, etc. As the case progressed, Dept. of Fair Employment and Housing accused Activision of suppressing and destroying evidence. The Defendant denied the accusation.  

The Defendant: Dept. of Fair Employment and Housing v. Activision Blizzard

The Defendant is Activision Blizzard Inc., the maker of Call of Duty and other video games. On October 19, 2021, Activision asked the court to pause the proceedings; requesting time to investigate ethics allegations against the agency, and possibly bring a motion to disqualify specific attorneys. 

Details of the Case: Dept. of Fair Employment and Housing v. Activision Blizzard

On October 19, 2021, Activision asked the court to pause the proceedings; requesting time to investigate ethics allegations against the agency, and possibly bring a motion to disqualify specific attorneys involved. The request stemmed from a parallel federal lawsuit against Activision involving the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The federal agency agreed to a proposed settlement with Activision in September 2021. The proposed settlement would resolve discrimination and retaliation claims with a proposed $18 million settlement. The DFEH objected to the proposed settlement, arguing that the proposed agreement also released Activision from state claims that the EEOC lacks standing to prosecute. The EEOC asked the federal court to block DFEH’s attempt to intervene claiming that its investigation into the Defendant was led by two attorneys who eventually joined DFEH (in leadership roles). DFEH, after being informed of the conflict, retained new counsel. However, the EEOC argued that the intervention motion was filed only hours after the new counsel was retained, indicating strongly that the action was the product of the previous counsel. Los Angeles Superior Court denied Activision’s motion to stay without prejudice. However, the court did not block Activision from pursuing discovery on the alleged ethics violations issue. 

If you have questions about California labor law violations or or how employment law protects you against discrimination and harassment in the workplace, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Did Front Porch Communities & Services Violate California Labor Code?

In a recent PAGA-Only Action filed against Front Porch Communities and Services, the plaintiff alleged that the California corporation violated multiple California labor codes by failing to compensate employees for missed meal breaks and rest periods, and failing to reimburse employees for business expenses.

The Case: Catherine Zulu vs. Front Porch Communities & Services

The Court: Santa Clara County Superior Court

The Case No.: 21CV386663

The Plaintiff: Catherine Zulu vs. Front Porch Communities & Services

The plaintiff, Catherine Zuli, was employed by the Defendant, Front Porch Communities & Services, from September 2019 through December 2020. During her employment, she was classified as a non-exempt employee and paid on an hourly basis. As an hourly, non-exempt employee in the state of California, Zulu was entitled to legally required meal and rest periods, as well as minimum wage and overtime pay. The plaintiff seeks fixed civil penalties for alleged violations of California Labor Codes.

The Defendant: Catherine Zulu vs. Front Porch Communities & Services

The defendant in the case, Front Porch Communities & Services, is a California corporation offering nursing, continuing care retirement communities, and residential care facilities.

About the Case: Catherine Zulu vs. Front Porch Communities & Services

The PAGA-Only Action is currently pending in the Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 21CV386663. According to the lawsuit, the Defendant allegedly failed to pay employees for all hours worked including time spent waiting in line for and undergoing mandatory temperature checks, a Covid-19 screening. As the time spent was not counted as hours worked, it was also not calculated into the employees’ pay for regular hours or overtime hours, and plaintiff alleged this constitutes additional violations of minimum wage and overtime pay requirements. Through PAGA, the State of California can enforce labor laws through the employees suing under the PAGA who do so acting as a proxy or agent of state labor law enforcement agencies. A PAGA action is intended as a law enforcement action and is not designed to benefit private parties by recovering damages or obtaining restitution.

If you have questions about meal breaks violations or if you’ve experienced other California labor law violations, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

California Nonprofit Wage Theft Lawsuit: Preliminary $170K Settlement

In June 2021, Downtown Streets Team, a California nonprofit came to a $170,000 preliminary settlement agreement to resolve a wage theft lawsuit.

The Case: Jaclyn Epter v. Downtown Streets, Inc.

The Court: Superior Court for the State of California for the County of San Francisco

The Case No.: CGC-19-579955

The Plaintiff: Epter v. Downtown Streets

The plaintiff in the case, Jaclyn Epter, is a former employment specialist at Downtown Streets. Epter filed a class-action lawsuit in December 2019 on behalf of herself and other case managers and employment specialists for nonpayment of wages. The lawsuit alleged wage theft or wage abuse based on overtime violations, failure to provide mandated break and lunch time compensation, late payment of wages after termination or resignation, etc. for the time period between Oct. 11, 2015 and March 31, 2020. The plaintiff alleges that the nonprofit illegally misclassified its employment specialists and case managers, who support the nonprofits various programs, as salary workers exempt from the protections of the California Labor Code.

The Defendant: Epter v. Downtown Streets

The defendant in the case, Downtown Streets, is a nonprofit corporation that employs the homeless and low wage earners and runs the Downtown Streets Team. The “team” provides street cleaning service throughout Palo Alto and surrounding Bay Area cities. The purpose of the nonprofit’s street cleaning team is to help uplift the homeless in the area (as well as low wage workers) and assist them in finding employment and housing.

The Allegations: Epter v. Downtown Streets

Some of the allegations plaintiffs cited in the lawsuit included:

• Failure to pay wages for all hours worked

• Failure to pay overtime wages

• Failure to provide meal periods or premium wages in lieu thereof

• Failure to provide rest breaks or premium wages in lieu thereof

• Failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements

• Failure to timely pay final wages at termination

• Violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law

More About the Case: Epter v. Downtown Streets

The plaintiff in the case claims that she was instructed to record her hours as no more than 8 in a workday or 40 in a work week regardless of how many she worked. She also alleges that employees were discouraged from taking meal or rest breaks, and that the company did not provide them with accurate, itemized wage statements. According to court documents, the wage theft lawsuit’s preliminary settlement was approved on June 25th, and a final settlement will potentially be determined by the court on Sept. 23rd. The $170,000 settlement is intended to resolve the wage theft lawsuit, and pay 72 employees affected by the pay disparities to provide for uncompensated overtime, (as well as providing compensation for missed meal and rest breaks mandated by employment law). The allegations claimed millions of dollars in losses, so the defendant sees the $170,000 settlement as a good outcome. Downtown Streets denied the allegations, but will examine its records for any employees not property compensated.

If you need to discuss California state law or if you need to file a class action lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Three Former Kraft Heinz Employees Claim Racial Discrimination & File $30M Suit

Former Kraft Heinz employees accuse the company of racism and allege racial hostility in the workplace.

The Case: Alex Horn, Lance Aytman, and Keith Hooker v. Kraft Heinz Foods Company LLC

The Court: United States District Court Eastern District of California

The Case No.: 1:21-at-00830

The Plaintiff: Hooker v. Kraft Heinz

Plaintiffs in the case are three formerKraft Heinz Foods Company employees: Alex Horn, Lance Aytman, and Keith Hooker. The three former employees filed a $30 million lawsuit alleging racial discrimination and hostility at the company’s Tulare, California dairy facility. The plaintiffs claim that between 2012 and 2018 they faced numerous forms of discrimination including death threats, regular use of racial slurs, vandalism of their personal property, etc. The plaintiffs allege that when they advised management of the situation, and asked management at the Kraft Heinz facility repeatedly to investigate the incidents, nothing was done. Allegedly, the discriminatory treatment continued, the trio were passed over for promotions they deserved, and eventually they ended up with less desirable job assignments, excessive scrutiny on the job, and unearned disciplinary action that forced them from their jobs and caused severe mental, emotional, and physical distress. By forcing them out of their jobs at the dairy facility, the plaintiffs also allege that Kraft Heinz broke their contracts illegally.

The Defendant: Hooker v. Kraft Heinz

The defendant, Kraft Heinz Foods Company LLC or Kraft Heinz, is a food and beverage limited liability corporation registered in Delaware and co-headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Kraft Heinz operates a number of manufacturing and packaging facilities across California, one of which is located in Tulare. The Tulare plant specializes in the production of dairy products, including a variety of cheeses. During the plaintiffs’ time of employment, the Tulare Plant employed a few hundred workers (temporary and permanent workers combined).

More About the Case: Hooker v. Kraft Heinz

The defendant, Kraft Heinz, said that since the reporting of these incidents in 2018, there have been no other reported allegations of racism, discrimination or harassment at the Tulare facility. The company claims that they are dedicated to creating diverse, inclusive workplaces, and have a zero tolerance policy for discrimination or harassment. In connection to the specific 2018 allegations at the Tulare plant, the company’s spokesperson indicated that the allegations were several years old, and that the company undertook an extensive investigation as soon as they were made aware, including cooperating with local law enforcement - all in order to ensure that any behavior that violated company policies was discovered, and if it was, that it was stopped.

If you need to discuss violations of California state law or if you need to file a California class action lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Small California Christian Nursing School Faces Allegations of Retaliation and Wrongful Termination in Court

Two former professors filed a wrongful termination lawsuit against a small, Christian California Nursing School alleging retaliation, and wrongful termination.

The Case: Anita Bralock v. American University of Health Sciences Inc.

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.: BC614955

The Plaintiff: Bralock v. American University

The plaintiffs in the case, Anita Bralock and Brandon Fryman, are two former professors at American University. The professors filed a wrongful termination lawsuit claiming they were fired from their jobs at the university for investigating students’ claims of sexual harassment against the school’s founder, ​​Pastor Gregory Johnson. The plaintiffs claim that Johnson and the American University of Health Sciences retaliated against them after they (along with a 3rd faculty member) launched investigations into multiple students’ complaints alleging sexually inappropriate behavior from the school’s founder, Johnson.

The Defendant: Bralock v. American University

American University, a small (approx. 300 students), Christian nursing school founded in California in 1993, and its founder, Johnson, deny the allegations and maintain that the plaintiffs were fired from their positions at the school because they had plans to start a competing school and when American University attempted to investigate their activities regarding the matter, the two would not cooperate.

More About the Case: Bralock v. American University

The wrongful termination suit between two former professors and a small California Christian nursing school proceeded to jury trial. A California state court jury heard opening statements in the case. Since the school receives federal funding, it is required to adhere to Title IX, the federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in educational settings. The plaintiffs’ counsel also noted that the founder, Johnson, filled an unusually significant number of administrative roles for American University, including the Title IX Coordinator, which made it awkward for students who wished to raise concerns or make allegations related to Johnson’s own behavior.

Incidents Leading to the Wrongful Termination: Bralock v. American University

When nursing students brought complaints of unwanted touching or inappropriate comments to Fryman, he turned to Bralock, as the dean of the nursing school, and a third faculty member. Together, the three faculty members met with the nursing student who made the original complaint at an off-campus location to discuss the claims. According to the plaintiffs, when Johnson learned of the situation, the investigations were taken over by his attorney and according to allegations, they were quickly buried. Not long after, Fryman’s salary was cut by 50%. Then both Fryman and Bralock were fired after an investigation that was allegedly related to their involvement in a business plan to start a competing school. The plaintiffs claim this was a cover for the unlawful retaliation in connection to the Title IX investigation. The University’s counsel claims that Fryman and Bralock were actively involved in plans to start a competing school, and that the school was within their rights to fire employees involved in plans that supported a competitor. The defendant’s counsel also accused the plaintiffs of creating a false narrative because there was nothing else they could legally do for getting caught attempting to work against their current employer.

If you need to file a wrongful termination lawsuit, or you have questions about employment law violations, get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP today. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

1st Precedential Decision from California Appellate Court: Striking a Claim Based on Manageability

In recent news, a California appellate court ruled that trial courts have “inherent authority” to strike claims under California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) if they won’t be manageable at trial. This is the first precedential decision on this particular issue from a California court.

The Case: Wesson v. Staples The Office Superstore, LLC

The Court: Court of Appeals of California

The Court No.: B302988

The Plaintiff: Wesson v. Staples

Fred Wesson filed a PAGA claim on behalf of himself and 345 other employees alleging that he and the other employees were misclassified as exempt from overtime.

The Trial Court’s Decision: Wesson v. Staples

The defendant, Staples The Office Superstore, LLC, moved to strike the PAGA claim citing that it would be “unmanageable” and therefore constitute a violation of its due-process rights. The claims were made based on the number of employees the plaintiff was attempting to represent in combination with the general nature of the claim’s allegations. While arguing that the claim was unmanageable, the defendant insisted that in order to show the employees were properly classified, individualized proof would be necessary and that based on this requirement, the case could “not be fairly and efficiently litigated.” The plaintiff responded by arguing that the trial court wasn’t authorized to strike the PAGA claim on grounds of manageability and that, even if they did have the authority, the PAGA claim was manageable. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion to strike the PAGA claim.

On Appeal: Wesson v. Staples

Considering the procedural quagmire associated with PAGA claims, many argue that courts should strike any claims that would be unmanageable at trial. In some cases, trial courts have agreed. In other cases, trial courts disagree. However, the Wesson decision is the first time a California Court of Appeal has issued any published authority on this issue. The appellate court, drawing upon courts’ inherent authority to manage litigation, held that courts do have the authority to ensure PAGA claims can be “fairly and efficiently tried” and that when necessary, courts may strike unmanageable claims. The appellate court also held that, in the matter of the Wesson claim specifically, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in striking the claim based on the grounds that it was unmanageable.

The Repercussions of the Appellate Court’s Decision: Wesson v. Staples

The appellate court’s decision is particularly interesting considering that the fact that PAGA claims do not have to meet class action requirements means that PAGA claims generally present more manageability concerns than a class action. The appellate court did also note that a court finding a claim to be unmanageable would not necessarily result in striking the claim as the court should first attempt to resolve manageability problems by altering trial schedules, limiting the scope of the claim, etc. A published California Court of Appeal decision endorsing the ability to strike unmanageable PAGA claims will likely increase the number of California employers filing motions to strike, and subsequently, increase the number of California workers seeking class action certification in response to employment law violations.

If you have questions regarding filing a class action or how employment law protects California employees from discrimation, harassment, wage and hour violations and more, get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.